Quote:
Originally Posted by EmporerEJ
Where did that come from?
I'm not attacking you. And if you read that into it from what I said, I'm sorry, you mis-understood. I must have expressed myself poorly, by not separating you from the concept under discussion. It was not my intention.
But I feel VERY strongly about this "nanny state" concept, and "because it's the same in other areas" doesn't make it OK with me. It juts makes those examples wrong, as well. The way things become "just like those," is the people standing guard at the civil liberties of that industry didn't stand up and say "NO," when the time came.
Well, it's here now, and I say "NO." This far, and no farther.
|
It's tough in the written word when using the word "you" and exclamatory remarks about stupidity to distance oneself. One never is quite sure if it's the personal "you" or the generic grouping "you" iteration.
I think it's bone fucking stupid, as a whole, that many of the regulatory statutes that exist, do. I think it's dumb that I can't go to a gun range and practice shooting in a position I'm most likely to use. I think it's asinine that I have to show my ID to go to a movie or certain stores.
However, in this particular case, I don't see it as a separate ruling but as a continuation of existing guidelines.
I have concerns about the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression, as I have repeatedly expressed elsewhere on this very same board. I have concerns about Max and Stagliano's cases creating an artificial stopping place that can easily be pushed back. I've made several comments discussing personal preference and comfort versus what is/ should be allowed under free speech.
I think arguing that full disclosure as a legal norm is a limiting factor is a straw man of an argument. I get your concerns about limits to speech, but I think this particular ruling is not one that should be a worry.